The Olivet Discourse has three different instances. We’re going to focus on the account given by Matthew, as his is the one that presents us with the most difficulty.
Desiderata:
(a) Take the various expressions used in the passage in the most natural way possible.
(b) Consistency and coherence
(c) Resolving the delayed parousia
(d) Mindful of the structure of the passage
i) The Problem:
Jesus appears to make a false prophecy that the parousia will occur within the lifetime of his listeners, immediately after the fall of Jerusalem. C.S. Lewis called this passage the biggest embarrassment in the New Testament.
In Matthew, the problem manifests in two separate passages:
“Immediately after the distress of those days . . . they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven” v.29a, 30b
“Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened” v. 34
If “immediately after” in v29 refers to the fall of Jerusalem, and the “Son of Man coming” refers to the parousia, then Jesus made a false prophecy.
If “this generation” in v34 refers to Jesus’s listeners, and “all these things” includes the Parousia, Jesus made a false prophecy.
ii) Solutions?
Preterist: Interpret the “Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven” and the other apocalyptic imagery in v29-31 as referencing events that did occur with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., rather than the parousia.
The task of the Preterist is to neutralize the apocalyptic imagery in verses 29-31 to such an extent that it can fit the fall of Jerusalem that occurred in 70 A.D. Can it be done?
“Immediately after the distress of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.”
There’s ways to take each element in the above and interpret it in a neutralized sense. The sun being darkened and the moon not giving its light can, on occasion, be taken as imaginative ways to refer to political upheaval. But is this the natural and most plausible way to take the imagery?
Compare closely the following passages that occur elsewhere in the NT:
The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.
For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.
When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne.
In a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.
This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels.
Look, he is coming with the clouds,and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him and all peoples on earth will mourn because of him.
Here are references to the Son of Man's coming, angels gathering the elect, trumpet calls, clouds, glory, tribes of the earth mourning, celestial disturbances--all unambiguously related to the Second Advent. (Carson) It seems very doubtful that the natural way to understand v29--31 is as a reference to the Fall of Jerusalem, as the phrases occurring in those verses are so often linked with the parousia in the rest of the NT. It may be *possible* to neutralize each of the phrases occurring in verses 29-31 as a reference to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., but each such phrase occurring together makes singularly unlikely that this is the way Matthew meant them to be taken.
Here’s a pretty glaring example of a Preterist interpretation straining to bend the text to the events of 70 A.D.:
“And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds”
The Preterist would see this as a reference to the gentile mission. But angels = missionaries? Seems unlikely. Plus, this interpretation demands a close connection between the fall of Jerusalem and the gentile mission, but the gentile mission had been ongoing for several decades when the temple fell in 70 A.D.
The Preterist view violates desiderata (a). It’s an unnatural interpretation of v. 29-31, which most naturally refer to the parousia. The Preterist view should be rejected.
Carson Approach: The best way to respect both the natural meaning of v. 29-31 as a reference to the parousia while avoiding the conclusion that Jesus timed it incorrectly is to pay attention to the structure of the passage. The basic idea given by D.A. Carson is that Matthew uses signal phrases that break up the passage into natural sections. So what are these sections and what do they tell us?
Carson takes it that verses 4-26 refer to an overall distress period (thlipsis) that the Church is still experiencing and that will not end until the parousia, and that within this overall distress a particularly noteworthy thlipsis occurred with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., which is related in verses 15-21 (a “great distress/thlipsis” v.21). The idea then is that the “great distress” of 70 A.D. is just one segment within the whole distress period spanning from 33 A.D. to current.
So the chronological referent of v.29--“immediately after the distress (thlipsis) of those days,”--refers to the overall distress period, and not to the “great” thlipsis that occurred with the fall of Jerusalem. This interpretation allows us to detach the parousia’s description in v.29-31 from the fall of Jerusalem, while retaining v.29-31 in its most natural sense as a reference to the parousia. The parousia will come “immediately after” the distress the church has been experiencing since the ascension rather than after the fall of Jerusalem (which obviously did not occur).
What about v.34, the reference to “This generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened”?
Carson takes it that “all these things,” refers to the beginning but not the completion of the distress and signs described in v.4-25, which include wars, famines, the gentile mission, and the fall of Jerusalem, which all did occur within the lifetime of Jesus’s listeners, but did not find their termination within their lifetime. (This interpretation fits exceedingly well with Luke’s redaction of the passage: “Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled”--the beginning, but not the conclusion of the distress and signs.)
Once we’re in this overall distress period, Jesus indicates that he can return at any moment, but he seems to indicate that the period of his delay may be quite long, especially in parables following this passage: 25:5 “The bridegroom was a long time in coming. . .” and 25:19 “After a long time the master of those servants returned. . .”
